So, the Tusk Force update just hit the live server yesterday, and, I’m sure I speak for all my fellow Thai countrymen here that we are hyped by the introduction of our OPLOT-T.
But, when I checked on the X-Ray schematic of the OPLOT, I found that its composite armor is only 60 mm Steel, 30 mm Textolite, then 50 mm steel.
For comparison, the T-80UD, which the OPLOT is developed from, has 50 mm steel, 30 mm Textolite, 35 mm steel, 15 mm air gap, 30mm Textolite, then 50 mm steel.
That’s a few layers of missing from the upper front plate.
But, why would they do that? Sure, the Duplet ERA is great and all, but when those ERA blow up, doesn’t it mean the armor beneath the ERA will be very poor?
yes, as you can see the image above, the 15+50mm box is put over the hull, not fixed, can be removed by crane when repair
gaijin modeled the whole box including the 15mm and 50mm armor into the current ERA x-ray structure.
The problem is not that some layers are forgotten to be there, but to prove they are what they are there.
The thing is the estimation of Duplet efficency. It is counted via including all other parts of the complex besides ERA blocks themselves (e.g. dampners, thicknesses of which is 35mm) and their properties (structural steel) and type of round (3BM42).
The main question is whether the right data is used for Duplet’s efficency estimation. There are two manufacturers: Microtek and UAM, the data of the latter is used for it, but their products differ in efficency, so Microtek’s better(?) Nizh/Duplet that is used in Oplots should be different to UAM’s Nizh/Duplet.
However, Microtek doesn’t provide exact data for KE projectiles (what range, angle, round used), and firing tests kind of align with UAM’s description of its Nizh/Duplet.
Different thing is the “missing” layer. It is not missing. Its values are integrated in ERA efficency, thus it has no values/properties visible in x-ray, but the plate is indeed there. Nizh acts differently to conventional ERA like Kontakt-1, and that layer between ERAs is taken into estimation of the second ERA layer efficency.
You cannot really prove it is, say, not just 35mm dampner made of soft steel, but an independent 50mm HHRHA plate, because patents for Oplot mention usage of different matetials for dampners (rubber, soft/construction steel, RHA), but as I said, there is not official cutaway of front armor stating it is indeed 50mm and made of HHRHA. The statement [of layer between ERAs being 50mm thick and made of HHRHA] is again less likely to be true because Duplet’s efficency with soft steel as dampner makes current numbers appear true (again, looking at UAM’s data sheet, not Microtek’s).
While situation in favour of better armor looks bleak, there is one document that might prove higher efficency of Duplet, however there is no full version of said doc online, thus leaving the current armor “right”.
In fact, Mikrotek claims the same thing as UAM, but in Mikrotek’s brochures, unlike UAM, many different projectiles are lumped together and the effectiveness is given from the weakest one.
Technically yes, but again, iirc Microtek has never said “APFSDS A looses N1% efficency against Nizh and APFSDS B looses N2% efficency against Nizh”, as we are clinging to every word here.
I am not talking about the fact of realism concearning ERA behavior. Devs aren’t going in-detail with it, because it would be just another rather annoying feature as it would take reworking ERA and APFSDS behavior as a whole.
I am talking about speculations with number and data. Microtek haven’t provided any specific numbers for specific APFSDS shells used to estimate ERA efficency, leaving space for speculations. I don’t care about early/late APFSDS efficency against ERA because in-game it is completely irrelevant due to aforementioned lack of mechanics. What one can care about is finding Microtek’s detailed numbers and specifications for Nizh, sans looking at UAM’s numbers interpretation(s).
No. They’re the same generation of shells. You can distinguish the old ones from the new ones by comparing their penetration at 0 degrees and at 60 degrees.
For example, the 3BM22, while having almost the same penetration at 0 degrees as the 3BM42, has significantly worse penetration at 60 degrees.
ERA performs much better against these shells. For example, the Oplot UFP shows around 900 mm of penetration versus the 3BM22 or 3BM15.
I do know what 0° and 60° stand for, and why ERA has higher efficency against lower angled armor penetration APFSDS.
My only mistake was not including words “monobloc” and “multi-part”. I ain’t explaining again why it is irrelevant to the game right now, and why no ERA is gauged by older APFSDS and instead by newer ones.
I’ll repeat for the last time: I am not talking about early/late APFSDS efficency against ERA in general, but about what data Microtek does or doesn’t provide.
The problem here is again beloved data interpretation: it is said up to 50% (for Nizh-1M), not exactly 50%. It can be interpreted as data being illustrated with taking into account error (after all nothing is absolute when it comes to things so complex), but then: why is 3BM42 with 235mm pen 60° (LoS not taking into account for simplicity) and DM33 with 255mm pen 60° are on the same line in the brochure?
If we go with LoS, the difference is even greater, thus this 50% are calculated as either an average values across the section (M829/DM33/3BM42), the most powerful one (DM33) or, again, in Microtek’s manner whereas 50% stands for 3BM42 but not for DM33. In game, however, the effect is the same against both APFSDS (both loose only 140mm 60something° angle pen), even though DM33 should loose less due to the structure, not generation. APFSDS generation is made by devs for, yet again, simplicity of things, because right now modelling angle performance and behavior for APFSDS of different structures might break the whole top-tier ground.
